Tough decision - Elective C or not ?

"W Lee" wrote in message ...
my baby was breech too. i opt for the Elective C. no problem. it is quick
and easy. he was out within a few minutes. no agony and pain. i too had
epidural. i was really scared at the begining, but afterwards, i felt
better once my baby is out. it is very confusing when you are given all
those option. go with your patternal instinct. talk to your wife about it.
think what is best for you both and go with it. nature does it without
anything. sometimes the doctor tells you so much , it is scary to know. i
think they don't help to solve your problem but give you a whole lot more to
worry. don't think about it too much. go with your paternal instinct. to me
it usually works out well for us. good luck to you both.
"paul williams" wrote in message
om...
Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it
looks very large.

Consultant has given us the choice :-

1. Elective C-section at 39 weeks.
2. Induce at 40 weeks.

Option 1 seems OK but consultant highlighted the risks involved with
any C-section.

Option 2 seems better if natural birth is possible. However, theres a
higher risk of emergency C-section which is obviously worse.

Are there any stats on how many Elective C-sections have problems ?

What about stats on how many large babies get forced down the
emergency C anyway? What about the extra risks of an emergency C
compared to an elective?

Also, my wifes decided on an epidural anyway in the event of normal
birth. Does'nt this provide problems with larger babies anyway? I'e'
forceps or ventouse delivery? Not what we want either....

Confused Father....


Hi

I have read all previous messages regarding c-section versus vaginal
births, and I have to say that I would NEVER have a vaginal birth
again by choice. I am not saying that all vaginal births are
horrific, because thay arn't, but why put yourself through something
which is potentially damaging when you can now opt for a surgical
alternative? Ok I hear you cry, what do I know?
I had a 9Ib 8oz baby boy who was three days early. Because I wasn't
really large enough to give birth to him without problems, I went thru
a 36 hour labour, had ventouse, had an episiotomy, heamorrhaged
severely and was left knackered, drained and traumatised. At the time
I was so excited about meeting my baby I went with the flow, but my
baby's heart rate was constantly dropping so blood tests were taken
from his head "in utero" to check his oxygen levels, and I didn't push
for an emergency c-section to reduce the resulting trauma. With my 3
pint blood loss, the obstetrician remarked that in hindsight it would
have been wiser to opt for one. It took me months to recover. I
believe that if vaginal births run smoothly then brilliant, they are
the best option, but at best most women are left with a weakened
pelvic floor, piles, and aches and pains for the rest of their lives
(especially with larger babies) I am only 30, but can never make it
to the loo in time - yet my friend who had two elective c-sections
feels no after effects what so ever. She had a mild infection in her
scar after the second, but after seeing me trying to get over my
episiotomy, says her troubles were like a walk in the park.

I always feel irritated when people try to say c-sections are major
surgery and far more risky. Perhaps in theory they are, but if
they're so much the worse option, why do the rich and famous pay for
them in their droves? ALso, you ask the majority of women who have
had an experience like me and then go on to have a c-section with
second pregnancies which they found easier. All the women I have
asked this question of have said c-section any day of the week. I have
asked many women this question, because I felt guilty for wanting that
option for my next baby. At the very least you haven't been in hours
of labour with c-sections, you can look after your little one having
had a good nights sleep the night before birth. You can justifiably
stay immobile for a few days bonding with the baby. I certainly
staggered around with a drip unable to sit or walk properly - you
might have pain from surgery, but believe me you get pain with an
episiotomy and pushing small elephant through your pelvis.

I don't want to scare anyone with my experiences, but I feel quite
passionate about this trend in making women feel bad about c-sections.
True, things can go wrong with them also, but if your baby is large,
you have had previous difficulties then I believe it to be the best
option. WHen I have my next child, I'll let you know which was the
best type of birth.

Love Liz xx

Mary Gordon wrote:

2. They won't give you one because you are too far advanced in labour

Never say never. I have had more than a couple of clients have
epidurals when they were completely dilated for a variety of reasons.

Kris

Paul W wrote:

"hierophant" wrote in message
m...


Paul W wrote:


Only worry is that these things like epidural and C won't be available

NOW

in the heat of the moment so to speak...

I have read several stories now over the internet, heard several in
person from mothers, nurses, midwives, about how 'emergency cesareans'
still took 30-45 minutes to prepare. If you're in the hospital, there
is a good chance you will get what you need when you need it.

I also know of someone who had planned an out of hospital birth and had
a cord prolapse. With an ambulance ride and excellent coordination with
the receiving hospital, the baby was born by true emergency cesarean
within 14 minutes of the call.

Are you all in the UK or US?


Kris and I are both in the US, though in different
parts.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Liz" wrote in message
om...
I have read all previous messages regarding c-section versus vaginal
births, and I have to say that I would NEVER have a vaginal birth
again by choice. I am not saying that all vaginal births are
horrific, because thay arn't, but why put yourself through something
which is potentially damaging when you can now opt for a surgical
alternative?

Maybe because no one can know *which* vaginal births will be horrific like
yours and which will not. And because the vast majority of vaginal births
AREN'T horrific like yours, it's absolutely foolish to put yourself through
major surgery which brings with it its own set of potentially damaging
complications (and more of them than a vaginal birth) for no good reason.

I
believe that if vaginal births run smoothly then brilliant, they are
the best option,

And most women, with good support and well-trained caregivers, can have a
smooth and brilliant birth. If you believe a vaginal birth is the best
option when it goes right, why in the world would you counsel women to avoid
them and therefore ensure they don't even get a chance at the best possible
birth?

but at best most women are left with a weakened
pelvic floor, piles, and aches and pains for the rest of their lives
(especially with larger babies) I am only 30, but can never make it
to the loo in time - yet my friend who had two elective c-sections
feels no after effects what so ever.

Pelvic floor problems are more related to the weight of baby resting on the
bladder during pregnancy itself than to the mode of delivery. It's
*pregnancy* that weakens the muscles, not giving birth. And some people
(myself included) have weaker pelvic floors to begin with and forget to
Kegel as much as they should, thus resulting in more problems after giving
birth regardless of whether they have vaginal deliveries or C-sections.

As for piles--hey, if you want to avoid them, why not have a colostomy bag
installed? Why put yourself through the potentially damaging act of passing
your stools when there's a surgical alternative available? (Yes, I know
that's snarky. Sorry, but I think you see what I'm driving at, don't you?)
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"She rose her eyebrows at Toby" -- from "O' Artful Death", by Sarah Stewart
Taylor

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Liz wrote:


believe that if vaginal births run smoothly then brilliant, they are
the best option, but at best most women are left with a weakened
pelvic floor, piles, and aches and pains for the rest of their lives
(especially with larger babies)


Oh, puhleeze. I don't dispute your experience.
There are definitely difficult vaginal births out there
(though many of them result from poor management of the
birth and are easily avoided). I don't dispute that at
all. However, to say that most women are left with these
problems is absolutely hogwash, as many studies clearly
show. I've had three vaginal births, one with a large
baby. My pelvic floor is just fine, thank you very much,
and I haven't a single pain. Okay, sometimes my shoulders
ache a bit from carrying around a baby all the time, but
I don't think that counts. I never had an episiotomy.
Never had piles. In fact, after my biggest baby, I was
up and around easily after the birth and was with it enough
to go through moving to a different part of the country
only 2 1/2 weeks later, including getting up on a ladder
and stripping wallpaper and painting rooms. After my
last baby, I was basically back to normal within two
weeks.
While there are caregivers who are simply
incompetent at helping women deliver their babies
without so much trauma, there are also caregivers
who are very skilled at this. Many midwives almost
never do episiotomies and rarely even have to do
any stitches--even for big babies.


I always feel irritated when people try to say c-sections are major
surgery and far more risky. Perhaps in theory they are,


In theory? What about all the empirical studies
showing a clearly higher risk for mother (mortality,
surgical complications, etc.) *and* baby (respiratory
distress and injury)? They don't just pull those numbers
out of thin air, you know.

but if
they're so much the worse option, why do the rich and famous pay for
them in their droves?


Because they can and because being rich and famous
doesn't make you automatically well-educated on the issue.

ALso, you ask the majority of women who have
had an experience like me and then go on to have a c-section with
second pregnancies which they found easier.


Ummm...there are several people around here who
would contest that. Furthermore, you can't compare primary
c-sections with elective repeat c-sections. The issues
involved are different. Once you've had that first c-section,
you raise all sorts of issues and risks that you have to deal
with in future pregnancies.

All the women I have
asked this question of have said c-section any day of the week. I have
asked many women this question, because I felt guilty for wanting that
option for my next baby. At the very least you haven't been in hours
of labour with c-sections, you can look after your little one having
had a good nights sleep the night before birth. You can justifiably
stay immobile for a few days bonding with the baby.


I'm sorry--did you really just say that it's worth
it to have a c-section in order to justify time spent
bonding with your baby? That's a pretty high price to
pay, if you ask me. I simply asked friends and family
to help out for a bit, and they were happy to do so
despite mine having been vaginal births. I know not
everyone is as fortunate as I've been, but it seems
pretty extreme to me to suggest that one should choose
a c-section in order to get some time with one's baby!

I certainly
staggered around with a drip unable to sit or walk properly - you
might have pain from surgery, but believe me you get pain with an
episiotomy and pushing small elephant through your pelvis.


Most women don't *need* an episiotomy. Studies
have shown that the episiotomy rate can be 20 percent or
lower without impacting safety whatsoever. If your doctor
has an episiotomy rate higher than that, it's likely he
or she is doing unnecessary episiotomies. Personally,
if you want to compare anecdotes, *everyone* I know who's
had a vaginal birth has been up and around faster than
everyone I know who's had a c-section. That's not to
say c-sections are horror shows, but in the vast majority
of cases there's significantly more recovery involved
than with a vaginal birth. There's a reason why the
standard leave for a vaginal birth in the US is six
weeks, but the standard leave for a c-section is eight
weeks.


I don't want to scare anyone with my experiences, but I feel quite
passionate about this trend in making women feel bad about c-sections.


Women shouldn't feel bad about c-sections. When
they're necessary, they're amazing in their ability to
safeguard the health of mothers and babies. But women
shouldn't be naive about them either, and the research
is as clear as clear can be that they are riskier than
vaginal birth under normal circumstances.


True, things can go wrong with them also, but if your baby is large,
you have had previous difficulties then I believe it to be the best
option. WHen I have my next child, I'll let you know which was the
best type of birth.


How on earth would that be a fair comparison? It
seems like you had a relative horror show of a vaginal
birth. If all vaginal births were like that, of *course*
people would head for c-sections in droves. But most
vaginal births are *not* like that, particularly if one
has caregivers who are skilled at and supportive of
vaginal birth and if one has prepared well. Of course,
difficult births can happen in the best of circumstances--
but then again, difficult things have happened with
c-sections too. IIRC, there are at least three m.k.p
regulars who had to endure c-sections with inadequate
anesthesia. I'm pretty sure none of them recommend
elective primary c-sections.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:57:22 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

I always feel irritated when people try to say c-sections are major
surgery and far more risky. Perhaps in theory they are,

In theory? What about all the empirical studies
showing a clearly higher risk for mother (mortality,
surgical complications, etc.) *and* baby (respiratory
distress and injury)? They don't just pull those numbers
out of thin air, you know.

Ericka, I am in agreement with you. For the record, I had an
emergency c-section with #1, and I am considering an elective
c-section with #2.

C-sections are major surgery. No ifs, ands or buts. I can't believe
there are people out there who believe that it is the safer option or
even the less painful option.

My c-section saved both my and my DD's life. I thank the gods that I
had the option open to me when I needed it. However, I wouldn't wish
an emergency c-section on my worst enemy. The pain and recovery is
just so much worse.

So why am I considering an elective c-section? Because I am. I
didn't say that I was logical. Yes, I am fully aware of the risks to
both me and my baby.

However, if you can avoid the first c-section, by all means, DO NOT DO
IT!

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

"hierophant" wrote in message
m...


Mary Gordon wrote:

2. They won't give you one because you are too far advanced in labour

Never say never. I have had more than a couple of clients have
epidurals when they were completely dilated for a variety of reasons.

.....I did, after at least an hour of pushing. However, baby clearly wasn't
descending because cramps in my legs were preventing me from pushing
effectively (among other reasons). If baby had been descending properly, I
doubt my doctor would have suggested it, because it would have been over
soon anyway.

--angela

In article ,
says...

I have read all previous messages regarding c-section versus vaginal
births, and I have to say that I would NEVER have a vaginal birth
again by choice. I am not saying that all vaginal births are
horrific, because thay arn't, but why put yourself through something
which is potentially damaging when you can now opt for a surgical
alternative? Ok I hear you cry, what do I know?

*sputter* Why would I opt for major surgery and a longer recovery a
a potential infection and a higher maternal and infant mortality rate
over a vaginal birth? I can't possibly imagine....

(especially with larger babies) I am only 30, but can never make it
to the loo in time - yet my friend who had two elective c-sections
feels no after effects what so ever. She had a mild infection in her
scar after the second, but after seeing me trying to get over my
episiotomy, says her troubles were like a walk in the park.

I've had two vaginal births, and two c-sections, and while none of it
was pleasant, there's a reason I fought hard for the VBA2CS this last
time.

I always feel irritated when people try to say c-sections are major
surgery and far more risky. Perhaps in theory they are

No, not in theory. In actuality.

option for my next baby. At the very least you haven't been in hours
of labour with c-sections, you can look after your little one having
had a good nights sleep the night before birth. You can justifiably
stay immobile for a few days bonding with the baby.

Did that with a vaginal birth, too.

I certainly
staggered around with a drip unable to sit or walk properly - you
might have pain from surgery, but believe me you get pain with an
episiotomy and pushing small elephant through your pelvis.

No kidding, really? You certainly have pain from people cutting you
open, too. Especially when the anesthetic doesn't work.

I don't want to scare anyone with my experiences, but I feel quite
passionate about this trend in making women feel bad about c-sections.
True, things can go wrong with them also, but if your baby is large,
you have had previous difficulties then I believe it to be the best
option. WHen I have my next child, I'll let you know which was the
best type of birth.

For YOU. Not the best kind of birth in general, because the
statistics are against you by far. Vaginal birth is safer, period.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

"Daye" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:57:22 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:
In theory? What about all the empirical studies
showing a clearly higher risk for mother (mortality,
surgical complications, etc.) *and* baby (respiratory
distress and injury)? They don't just pull those numbers
out of thin air, you know.

Ericka, I am in agreement with you. For the record, I had an
emergency c-section with #1, and I am considering an elective
c-section with #2.

C-sections are major surgery. No ifs, ands or buts. I can't believe
there are people out there who believe that it is the safer option or
even the less painful option.

My c-section saved both my and my DD's life. I thank the gods that I
had the option open to me when I needed it. However, I wouldn't wish
an emergency c-section on my worst enemy. The pain and recovery is
just so much worse.

So why am I considering an elective c-section? Because I am. I
didn't say that I was logical. Yes, I am fully aware of the risks to
both me and my baby.

However, if you can avoid the first c-section, by all means, DO NOT DO
IT!

The thing is, it probably *is* logical to consider an ERCS because, while
there are risks to ERCS, there are also more risks to VBAC than to a
standard vaginal birth. When you've had a previous C-section, the
risk/benefit equation isn't nearly as clear-cut as it is when you've not had
a previous C-section. It's no longer trading a clearly less risk option
(vaginal birth) for a clearly more risky option, but rather trading one set
of risks for another. You just have to choose which set of risks you'd
rather avoid.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"She rose her eyebrows at Toby" -- from "O' Artful Death", by Sarah Stewart
Taylor

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:43:47 -0600, Michelle J. Haines
wrote:

No kidding, really? You certainly have pain from people cutting you
open, too. Especially when the anesthetic doesn't work.

If you don't believe Michelle, ask Sophie. With #3 the anesthetic
didn't take.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/